Many will be familiar with the words “further advances” and associate this term with typical boiler plate provisions in finance documents.
In a recent case (In the matter of Black Ant Co Ltd (in administration) [2014] EWHC 1161 (Ch)(15 April 2014) the High Court provided useful commentary on the meaning of “further advances” in the context of the priority of security.
Last week at the American Bankruptcy Institute meeting in Washington, D.C., our firm co-sponsored and participated in a mini-conference on bankruptcies that involve FCC-regulated companies. This was an opportunity to spend a few hours contemplating issues that practicing attorneys rarely get a chance to reflect upon in the midst of heated, multi-party bankruptcy proceedings.
On 16 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Norm 5 of 2014 of the Romanian Financial Supervisory Authority (the“FSA”) as a supplement to several regulations relating to the calculation of the re/insurer’s solvency margin, the minimum solvency margin and the safety fund (“Norm 5/2014”).
On 14 April 2014, the Official Gazette published Order 562 of 1 April 2014 for the amendment of and supplement to Order 235 of 2001 regarding the insurance of tourists against the insolvability or bankruptcy of travel agencies (“Order 562/2014”).
According to a recent report issued by the American Bankruptcy Institute, there was a 24 percent drop in business bankruptcy filings in the United States last year, resulting in the fewest filings since 2006. The larger corporate filings in 2013 were not the typical “mega” filings of years past. Unlike Lehman, Chrysler, Tribune, MF Global and others, the chapter 11 “mega-cases” filed in 2013 were smaller and less well known in the general business community. Among the more prominent were Cengage Learning, Excel Maritime, and Exide Technologies.
I am delighted to present the third edition of The Issues, an annual publication brought to you by our team at CMS Prague. As is tradition, the articles will look at general legislative developments as well as new opportunities and legal issues that you will be facing in the year ahead. We also look at sector specific topics from across industries such as consumer products, energy, financial services, hotels & leisure, lifesciences, real estate and technology, media & telecoms.
A New York bankruptcy court has ruled that certain victims of Bernard Madoff’s highly publicized Ponzi scheme are not entitled to adjust their claims to account for inflation or interest. Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 496 B.R. 744 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013). The Madoff Liquidation Trustee brought the motion asking the court to determine that Madoff customers’ “net equity” claims did not include “time-based damages” such as interest and inflation under the Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”).
On March 12, 2009, Gerald Rote and Annalisa Rote loaned $38,000 to their daughter and son-in-law to buy a home. The Rotes took a mortgage on the home but, to avoid the expense of publicly recording the mortgage, they did not immediately record it. Rather, they waited two years, until May 4, 2011, to record the mortgage. Seven months later, however, the daughter and son-inlaw filed a bankruptcy petition.
Parties wishing to resist the enforcement of an adjudication decision on the grounds of insolvency usually need to show that the claiming party will not be in a position to repay the amount of the decision if required to do so in later court or arbitration proceedings. Two recent cases in the TCC have, however, shown that different considerations can apply in the less typical circumstances of a members’ voluntary liquidation and a creditors voluntary arrangement.
Maguire & Co v Mar City Developments
The legal effect of “limited recourse” arrangements have been thrown into fresh doubt by a first instance decision of the respected Mr Justice David Richards in the case of Arm Asset Backed Securities S.A. [2013] EWHC 3351.
This decision is relevant to the following common financing arrangements.